Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Workshop-City Hall Complex ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Workshop: City Council Goal - City Hall Complex Meeting Date: September 26, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Mike Penwell www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547 ISSUE STATEMENT The purpose of the workshop is to discuss several items related to the City Hall complex project and verify decisions to be made at the October 17 work session. Information will be presented on the Police Patrol Facility site selection analysis and City Hall design progress, cost models for police patrol facilities on generic sites downtown and out of downtown, public involvement activities and the City Hall eco-charrette. BACKGROUND At the July 20, 2007, work session, the council decided to continue master planning efforts for a new city hall. The design team has continued public involvement, explored Police Patrol site options, and expanded concept design studies for a new city hall. Police Patrol Site Options At the November 20, 2006 work session, the council identified the Rock N’ Rodeo/Butterfly Lot site as the preferred site for a new city hall, and decided to separate police patrol functions from city hall primarily due to site constraints, competition for ground floor space, and issues related to city hall’s sense of welcome and openness. In the months following that meeting, complica- tions arose for using the Rock N’ Rodeo site and new benefits were identified for using the exist- ing City Hall site. At the July 11, 2007 work session, the council decided to pursue future city hall planning on the existing City Hall site. Because of this change, the design team included the existing City Hall site as one of the possible sites for a new police patrol facility. The project team will present research and facilitate a discussion regarding site selection for the police patrol facility. Much of the research was developed with the Police Facilities Specialized Input Group as part of the public involvement process. The Police Facilities SIG consisted of four Police Commission members who joined with the design team to review programmatic functions, develop site selection criteria, and discuss site options and suitability. The design team then developed comparative cost models for patrol facilities in various locations and site configurations. Decisions to be considered at the October 17 work session include selecting a site for a new police patrol facility. See Attachment A for a report outlining the work of the Police Facilities SIG. Expanded Concept Design As part of concept design, the design team collaborated with City staff in an eco-charrette on September 14, 2007, to define sustainable design goals and explore implementation strategies for the project. The team will update the council on the results of the charrette at the workshop. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070926\S070926A.doc The design team has begun expanded concept design looking at scenarios that fully consolidate city hall functions immediately, options that fully consolidate city hall functions incrementally, and explores police patrol functions included and separate in both scenarios. The team will share the concept design progress with the council at the workshop, focusing on how it relates to the decision of police patrol functions on the City Hall site. Public Involvement Update Public involvement activities took place at a variety of geographically dispersed venues includ- ing concerts and movies in the parks, First Friday Artwalks, Neighborhood Association picnics, and the Eugene Celebration. Outreach to youth occurred at the Youth Summit and the Leader- ship Training. Outreach to Latino residents continued at the Plaza Latina and selected Latino organizations. Coffee with Mayor Piercy served as an effective “raffle prize” for people of color who signed up to participate in city hall discussions, and acting City Manager Angel Jones has agreed to be the new “prize.” Public reaction was almost 100% appreciative of the effort to “come to them” and of the information about the planning process. In general, people seemed to think that a new city hall was needed and want it to be a model of sustainability. They thought it was important that the City had a facility replacement reserve fund and hoped the old Federal Building could be part of the eventual solution. This fall, public involvement activities include facilitating input on three topics specific to this phase of the design process: accessibility, sustainability and police facilities. The Police Facilities Specialized Input Group meetings were held in August and September and the Accessi- bility and Sustainability Specialized Input Groups are meeting next week. The next Community Forum is scheduled for October 18, 2007 from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the First United Methodist Church at 1376 Olive Street. Community Forum participants will continue to serve as an important source of design inspiration, and will see the design progress to date and give feedback to the consultant team. RELATED CITY POLICIES The city hall complex master planning and public participation process relates to the council values of: effective, accountable municipal government; a safe community; and sustainable development. The council has identified a continuing goal in 2007 to adopt an implementation plan for a parallel process for the construction of a new city hall and police facility. The approved City Hall Complex Action Plan identifies key issues that must be addressed as work toward the goal progresses. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council is asked to provide feedback on the police patrol facility site options and general feedback on the city hall design progress to date. It is not anticipated that the council will be asked to act on specific motions during this workshop. The council will be asked to take action at the October 17 work session to select or narrow the police patrol site options. The council will review further concept design progress at the December 12, 2007, workshop. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070926\S070926A.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION There are no specific recommendations for this agenda item. SUGGESTED MOTION There are no suggested motions related to this agenda item. ATTACHMENTS A. Police Facilities Specialized Input Group Report The consultant team will walk the council through all additional materials at the workshop in order to facilitate an in-depth discussion of issues. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mike Penwell Telephone: 682-5547 Staff E-Mail: michael.j.penwell@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070926\S070926A.doc City of Eugene City Hall Complex Master Plan Police Facilities Specialized Input Group Report INTRODUCTION City Hall Complex Master Planning began in October of 2005 in response to a Council Goal resolving ongoing discussions regarding Eugene’s aging City Hall. Since then, many studies and extensive public involvement have facilitated policy decisions by the city council to guide the design process. The current phase of master planning will lead to a concept design to be shared with the city council and the public in December 2007. Specialized Input Groups (SIG’s) of residents with specific expertise relative to particular topics have been organized to assist the consultant team in thinking through and examining three themes central to this phase: Accessibility, Sustainability, and Police Facilities. In addition, an open Community Forum will provide feedback on the development of the design. For the Police Facilities SIG, members of the Police Commission were selected for the role of citizen advisors because they are proven to be vested and informed at the level necessary, and have been through an official selection process that establishes their credibility in the commu- nity. The Police Commission formed a committee of four commission members to join the con- sultant team to carry out the task of considering site selection criteria, location options, and reviewing programmatic functions to be housed in a new Police Patrol Facility. This SIG met three times to discuss and develop the material in this report. SIG participants included: Police Patrol Facility Committee members ? John Brown, Police Commission ? Maurie Denner, Police Commission ? Chuck Hare, Police Commission ? Andrea Ortiz, City Council Liaison to the Police Commission Design Team members ? Jonah Cohen, Thomas Hacker Architects ? Dana Ing Crawford, Thomas Hacker Architects ? Gary Moye, Gary Moye Architect ? Ken Pirie, Walker Macy ? Ellen Teninty, T’NT Consultants ? Dave Wilson, MWL Architects City Staff ? Jeannine Parisi, Police Commission staff ? Mike Penwell, Facilities Design & Construction Manager ? Rick Siel, Eugene Police Department All aspects of the master planning process, including the work of this SIG, are guided by the Project Values and Position Statements that were adopted by City Council in 2005 (see Attach- ment A: Project Values). Additionally, the consultant team uses a process called Values-Based Decision Making requiring that we: ? Develop inclusive criteria ? Fully explore alternatives ? Use the most current information. Page 1 of 7 BACKGROUND The police department is a dynamic municipal function providing an essential city service to a growing community. It is important to understand how the current police facilities evolved over time and to plan for the flexibility to adapt to future changes (see Attachment B: Map of current police functions and locations). The existing Eugene City Hall was completed and fully occupied in 1964, housing the majority of city staff including the Eugene Police Department. The building was planned to accommodate police functions for ten years, with the intent to move police to a dedicated police facility in the mid-1970’s to accommodate growth for other city departments in City Hall. The original plan for a comprehensive new facility for all police functions was not realized due to funding challenges. An added cost consideration in the last decade is increased building code requirements for newly constructed “Essential Service Facilities”—such as hospitals, fire stations, and police buildings—which are significantly more expensive to build than standard buildings. Because the code requirements only apply to newly constructed “Essential Service” buildings, the police are allowed to remain in their current location even if it results in operational inefficiencies and hazards due to City Hall’s structural vulnerability in the event of an earth- quake. Since the construction of the existing City Hall, the city’s population has tripled and the other city staff has grown proportionately. The city managed this growth by incrementally occupying space in other existing buildings and by constructing facilities as funding allowed. Patrol and other police functions currently occupy approximately two-thirds of City Hall and space in seven other buildings in Eugene. Other city departments occupy the remaining space in City Hall and space in nine other buildings throughout downtown. For police, the dispersed condition can be considered positive as it supports the trend toward community policing. While the Police Department has seen modest personnel increments, recent independent stud- ies commissioned by the Police Department indicate significant understaffing, partly due to staffing cuts in the 1980’s during an economic recession. The studies suggest that significant increases to police staffing levels are necessary to achieve Eugene’s crime reduction and com- munity policing goals. Growth projections identified in the City Hall Space Needs study were performed in the spring of 2006 and reflect a smaller increase in staffing than suggested in the independent studies. Currently, the City has not made a formal budgetary commitment to any staffing plan. For this reason, consultants will continue to plan for a modest increase in police staffing sufficient to support community policing. When population and corresponding Police Department staffing growth reach a point where sig- nificant expansion is required, the department will likely move to a precinct model with multiple patrol facilities. This could entail some reorganization of police functions housed in patrol facili- ties, and facility development now should plan for the flexibility to accommodate some future growth and organizational changes. PROPOSED CONFIGURATION The consultant team studied multiple scenarios for how to integrate police functions with muni- cipal government, balancing the unique operational needs and cost impacts of a police facility with the needs of a new City Hall. Considerations for whether to consolidate all police functions into a new City Hall included: Page 2 of 7 consolidating city government functions to the greatest practical extent for unified leader- ? ship and governance; configuring police functions for optimal effectiveness, communication and oversight; ? balancing the security requirements of police functions with a sense of welcome, open- ? ness and transparency for City Hall; balancing occupancy of the first and second floors required for police functions (e.g. con- ? venient public access to the 24/7 Public Service Station, patrol staff proximity to fleet vehicles to optimize efficiency) with frequently accessed City Hall services (e.g. Permit Information Center, Municipal Courts, Council Chambers); balancing security and vehicle access requirements of police with the open lobby and ? plaza needs of City Hall; and costs to build non-police functions as an “Essential Service” structure if above or below ? police functions. After considering many consolidation scenarios relative to police and other City Hall functions, especially with regard to patrol functions, the council voted in November of 2006 “to proceed with planning for a new City Hall with police patrol separate from City Hall.” The consultant team then proposed grouping police functions into three categories: City Hall Police functions, Patrol Division functions in a new separate facility, and other functions that are already operating in separate facilities. City Hall Police functions include: Office of the Chief of Police ? Operations Support Division ? Data and Records Section ? City Hall Public Safety Station and 24/7 police service counter ? Investigations Division ? Patrol functions include: Patrol Division ? Patrol Support ? Functions that will not be consolidated in a new City Hall or patrol facility include: 911/Communications and Training Center ? Property Control and Forensic Evidence ? Firing Range ? Public Safety Stations (storefronts) ? Crime Prevention Unit and Safer Schools Team currently co-located with the Monroe ? Street Station Public interaction with police mainly occurs with officers on duty in the field. Additionally, the public may report crimes at any of the Public Safety Stations or at the front counter of the EPD at City Hall. The Public Safety Stations oversee diverse community outreach and education programs, and foster problem solving and connection to community resources. The patrol facil- ity is not used as a location for interaction with the public, but is primarily a place to begin and end shifts, and to store equipment necessary for optimal performance in the field. Page 3 of 7 PATROL FACILITY SITE CONSIDERATIONS The development of an inclusive set of criteria by which to evaluate and compare options is a crucial element of values-based decision making. The consultant team proposed a set of site evaluation criteria that was further developed and refined by the SIG. The SIG then tested the criteria by applying them to sites and further modified the criteria to be more useful. Police Patrol Site Selection Criteria (The following list is not prioritized): Location & Configuration Suitable sites should consider: Appropriate site size to accommodate space needs and support effective police ? operations Conformance to zoning and adopted land use plans including the Downtown Plan ? Proximity to police-oriented activities to facilitate police operations: City Hall, Municipal ? and District Courts, Property & Forensics, fueling stations, etc. Flexibility for future planning to accommodate modest expansion, organizational ? changes due to implementing community policing or precinct model, etc. Compatibility with surrounding land uses and activities ? Effect on community relations ? Potential to integrate sustainable design ? Impact on prime development opportunities ? Consistency with community policing strategies ? Security & Access Suitable sites should consider: Safety from natural or manmade disaster potential ? Access & egress for police vehicles: access to multiple streets, two-way traffic, avoid- ? ing potential gridlock, etc. Disruption to community traffic flow ? Surveillance of site perimeter ? Accessibility via other modes of transportation: transit, walking, bicycle ? Cost Suitable sites should consider: Whether the property is City-owned ? Site availability and willing seller/s ? Costs related to land acquisition, existing structures & displacement, and site prepara- ? tion Cost of structured versus surface parking ? Potential provision for staff personal vehicle parking ? Essential Service requirements in relation to adjacent or adjoining buildings ? In working with the criteria, we learned some relevant information. For example, when looking to see if the patrol facility would disrupt community traffic flow we learned that patrol shifts are structured such that only eight to ten patrol cars are dispatched at a time. When examining ownership and availability of property, we learned that city-ownership does not mean the site is either available or cost-free. Effect on community relations had multiple meanings, including the idea of locating the patrol facility in higher crime rate areas to have a positive impact. In another case, the displacement of four mobile homes on the site could have a negative effect on community relations. Public involvement activities lead us to believe that a main concern of the broader public is that the decisions are consistent with community policing strategies. Page 4 of 7 Sites Considered The SIG developed a list of 22 sites to study clustered around two focus areas with proximity to existing police interactions: downtown sites near the existing and future City Hall and out-of- downtown sites near the Property Control Unit and fueling area. A map was created to examine the sites for relevant zoning requirements and compliance with City planning (i.e. Downtown Plan), their relationship to transit options, surrounding access and egress constraints (i.e. one- way streets and railway), lot size (the minimum lot size to accommodate the space needs is approximately half a city block), and to study the sites in relationship to patrol officers’ daily travel patterns. Please note that although there has been a Council decision in November 2006 to separate the Patrol Facility from the City Hall, the possibility of building the Patrol Facility on the same site as the city hall is being explored. At the time of the Council decision, the preferred City Hall site was the Rock N’ Rodeo/County Butterfly Lot and it posed prohibitive challenges to include the Patrol Facility. Since then, some of the factors have changed, particularly that the preferred site for a new City Hall is now the full block existing City Hall site. For this reason, the City Hall site was included as one of the 22 possible sites (see Attachment C, map of Potential Police Patrol Sites). The SIG combined the sites and the criteria into a matrix to use for comparative evaluation. After assessing the 22 sites in consideration, 8 sites were selected to evaluate because they represented the most likely and varied possibilities. The remaining sites were not chosen to evaluate for a variety of reasons (see Summary of sites not evaluated, below). The evaluation discussion resulted in a positive (green), neutral (yellow), or negative (red) rating using each criterion. We learned some general lessons about pros and cons and specific issues pertaining to individual sites from the exercise. Both areas (downtown and out-of- downtown) provided benefits for proximity to existing police activities and interactions, and were considered equal in their ability to promote community policing strategies (see Attachment D, Site Suitability Matrix). In general, downtown sites showed: Good access to transit service and alternate modes of transportation ? Constraints due to small site size (all downtown sites require structured parking, likely ? underground due to planning restrictions) Incompatibility with city planning goals (locating a building downtown that doesn’t pro- ? duce vitality and public interactions, and houses few full-time employees) Challenges meeting adopted land use plans (downtown sites require a minimum floor-to- ? site area ratio that will be challenging to meet; structured parking will likely need to be underground due to a city planning requirement that 50% of ground floor parking struc- tures fronting the street house retail or office functions) In general, out-of-downtown sites showed: Poor access to transit service and alternate modes of transportation ? More flexibility for potential expansion or reorganized plan due to larger site sizes ? Greater potential for less expensive surface parking and accommodation of personally- ? owned vehicles Good surveillance of perimeter and protection of facilities due to site sizes ? Less expensive land and construction costs ? Page 5 of 7 Summary of sites not evaluated: Site C has several existing improvements on the site and restricted access while other ? nearby sites (A, B, D, E, and F) with similar features seemed better suited to evaluate. G has restricted access (no access on three sides and one-way access on Hwy 99) and ? is over-sized. H would require significant purchase of additional adjacent land from the same owner ? and has substantial existing improvements. I has several existing improvements on the site and other nearby sites (D, E, F) with ? similar features seemed better suited to evaluate. J is a smaller parcel with a potentially undesirable adjacency to a residential area and ? would displace (and require rebuilding of) existing police functions. S was selected to evaluate as the representative small downtown site over K, L, M, and ? N, all of which are within or adjacent to the downtown boundary and inherently share similar constraints due to their size and location. K may have an undesirable adjacency th to the 5 Avenue retail street and is adjacent to a primary railway line. L isn’t as close to other police activities and may have environmental contamination. M may have an undesirable adjacency to the Hult Center and Hilton Hotel. N is owned by the County, which plans to retain ownership of the property (through occupancy and development) for the foreseeable future. O is in the flood plane and could displace more desirable riverfront development. ? R could be an undesirable use in the courthouse district and would not reinforce the ? Great Streets concept and connection to the river. T is considered a prime development site and would not reinforce the Great Streets con- ? cept and connection to the river. U and V have the constraints of smaller downtown sites without the benefit of proximity ? to other patrol oriented activities. COMPARATIVE COST MODELS The patrol facility site evaluation process includes a comparison of likely costs. Since the site selection needs to occur prior to the design of the patrol facility, the cost models are based on assumptions of building size and density, parking configuration, estimated land costs and other factors. All cost models represent total project costs including construction, planning, furnishing, moving, etc. (hard and soft costs), and are escalated to a start of construction in 2010. The design team produced six cost models built on three generic sites, each with 2 variations on density and parking configurations. The generic sites were a half-block downtown, a larger site outside of downtown, and on the City Hall site. The models assumed: All police functions were built in an Essential Services structure ? Exterior building materials could be built less expensively outside of downtown (fewer ? construction constraints and less expensive materials could be employed) Interior materials would be equivalent for all scenarios ? Land costs for downtown were double that of land outside of downtown ($40 per square ? foot compared to $20 per square foot). Options 5 and 6 were modeled on the City Hall site and do not include land acquisition costs. Results from the comparative cost models showed that smaller sites required structured parking (more expensive than surface parking), and multiple floors of building and parking (more expen- sive for structure, elevators, and stairs). Page 6 of 7 Parking for fleet vehicles was included in all options. Parking for personally owned vehicles (POVs) were priced separately and is shown as an additive option. Cost Summary (in millions) Option 1, downtown 1 story building on ½ block with underground (UG) parking $33.5 M Option 2, downtown 2 story building on ½ block with above-ground structured prkg $31.3 M Option 3, out of downtown 1 story building and above-ground structured parking $30.4 M Option 4, out of downtown 1 story building and surface parking $26.6 M Option 5, 2 story building adjacent to City Hall and UG parking $32.9 M Option 6, 2 story building with some City Hall functions above and UG parking $37.3 M Parking for Personally Owned Vehicles (POV’s) Additive alternate for above-ground structured parking $10.0 M Additive alternate for surface parking $4.1 M Page 7 of 7 Addendum Police Commission Input September 13, 2007 INTRODUCTION On September 13, 2007, the Eugene City Hall Master Planning design team presented the work of the Police Facilities Special Input Group (SIG) to the Police Commission for further input. The presentation was introduced by Police Commissioner, Chuck Hare, who served on the SIG. Ellen Teninty, Public Involvement coordinator for the design team, explained that the Police Commission was not being asked for a formal recommendation, but to expand on the work of the Police Facilities SIG and flag any problems or concerns. Dana Ing Crawford, Project Manager from Thomas Hacker Architects, then led the presentation. ISSUES Commissioners asked why specific sites were not included in the eight selected by the SIG for evaluation by the full criteria. This suggestion led to the revision of the SIG report to include that information. For example, the EWEB site was excluded because it is in the flood plain and could displace more desirable riverfront development. The Peace Health site was not evaluated because it had the cost and zoning negatives of being downtown without the advantage of proximity to the major police node of City Hall and Courts. In addition, a Commissioner cautioned against the emotional reaction to simply seeing the most number of green dots on the matrix. The criteria have not been prioritized and one needs to look more closely to see what one values most highly and how the sites compare on those criteria in particular. In response to a question about the blue dot symbol used on the site map, the design team clarified that the dots show locations and frequency of patrol visits and activities, not where officers currently start and end their day since that location will be determined through the site selection process. Also, the consultants were asked to show which properties had multiple owners because that can add to the complications of acquiring the property. A question was raised about the potential displacement of trailer park tenants on Site A. The SIG and the Police Commission did not want to cause stress to those residents, but did want to clarify both the City Council commitment and the situations of those residents to see if it is accurate that the site needed to be out of consideration for that reason. The Police Facilities SIG noted that Sites A and B are part of the Public Works Department Master Plan and that there would be direct and indirect costs for using those sites for a patrol facility. Some Commissioners felt that if one of those were the best site for a Patrol Facility that it might serve a greater good to use it for that purpose. Commissioners asked if the other police facilities noted on the map could be moved to change the proximity to various potential sites. Chief Lehner answered that the Quarter Master could easily be moved but moving Property and Forensics would be expensive—especially to a down- town site—and may not be an appropriate downtown use as it is primarily a large secured ware- house. The Commission discussed the potential impact on crime rates of the increased presence of patrol cars due to beginning and ending shifts. This was thought to be a plus for both downtown Page 1 of 2 and West Eugene locations by some Commissioners. It was also noted that there will be a Public Safety Station in City Hall regardless of where the Patrol Facility is sited. There was a discussion about the cost of real estate downtown compared with out of downtown locations. Ms. Crawford used general comparative costs of $20 per square foot out of the downtown versus $40 per square foot in the downtown. A Commissioner said that he thought the industrial land under consideration out of downtown could cost $6 per square foot, not $20, and asked that the estimates be reconsidered for specific sites. Some discussion centered on the impact of a downtown Patrol Facility on the Downtown Plan goals, such as density and vitality. A Commissioner stated that moving the patrol facility out of the downtown was comparable to the EWEB relocation decision, because neither are a proper economic use of downtown land. Concern about the impact of an earthquake on patrol response, if located downtown, was voiced. It was noted that surrounding buildings could collapse and trap the patrol vehicles from getting through to the larger community. This concern is also reflected in the matrix filled out by the SIG. Regarding the trade offs of the Patrol Facility being close to out of downtown police functions or downtown police functions, a Commissioner noted that the distances we are talking about are fairly short when considering officer efficiency. The Police Commission considered how sites related to the long term future of the Police Department. If Eugene grew to require precincts, should this impact our site decision now? The Chief responded that in the short run, public safety stations are the footprint to the future. However when population growth and staffing reach a threshold, a second precinct would be located on the north side of the Willamette River. Ms. Crawford said that regardless of site, the patrol facility will be designed with interior flexibility to become a precinct, if needed. Page 2 of 2 ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈæÛÐÇ×É » ÷Ä×ÊÙÓÉ×ÖÓÉÙÛÐÊ×ÉÌÍÎÉÓÚÓÐÓÈà » ìÊÍØÇÙ×ÕÍÆ×ÊÎÏ×ÎÈ×ÖÖÓÙÓ×ÎÙà » ú×ÇÉ×ÊÖÊÓ×ÎØÐà » ÷ÏÚÍØÃ×ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐÉÈ×ÅÛÊØÉÔÓÌ » ÷ÎÔÛÎÙ×ØÍÅÎÈÍÅÎ » óÎÉÌÓÊ×ÙÓÆÓÙÌÊÓØ× » ïÛÄÓÏÓÂ×ÈÔ×ÇÉ×ÍÖùÓÈÃôÛÐÐÌÇÚÐÓÙÉÌÛÙ×ÉÚà ÈÔ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÛÎØÈÔ×ÓÊÛÙÙ×ÉÉÈÍÕÍÆ×ÊÎÏ×ÎÈÛÎØ ÓÈÉÊ×ÌÊ×É×ÎÈÛÈÓÆ×É » éÈÊÓÆ×ÖÍÊÉÓÏÌÐÓÙÓÈà § ìÐÛÎÖÍÊÈÔ×ÖÇÈÇÊ× ìÍÉÓÈÓÍÎéÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉ » óÎÙÍÊÌÍÊÛÈ×Ï×ÛÎÓÎÕÖÇÐÉÇÉÈÛÓÎÛÚÐ×Ø×ÉÓÕÎÕÍÛÐÉ » çÈÓÐÓÂ×ÛÐÍÎÕÈ×ÊÏÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕÔÍÊÓÂÍÎÍÖ  Ã×ÛÊÉÖÊÍÏ ÈÍÈÔ×Ã×ÛÊ  » ùÍÎÉÍÐÓØÛÈ×ùÓÈÃÉ×ÊÆÓÙ×ÉÈÍÈÔ×ÕÊ×ÛÈ×ÉÈ ÌÊÛÙÈÓÙÛÐ×ÄÈ×ÎÈ » ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÈÔ×ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÓÎÙÍÎÉÓØ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎÍÖÈÔ× øÍÅÎÈÍÅÎìÐÛÎÅÔÓÐ×ÎÍÈÐÓÏÓÈÓÎÕÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎ ÙÔÍÓÙ×ÉÈÍÈÔûÆ×ÎÇ× ùóèãíö÷çõ÷î÷ ÷çõ÷î÷ùóèãôûððùíïìð÷äïûéè÷êìðûî ÷ÇÕ×Î×ìÍÐÓÙ×ø×ÌÛÊÈÏ×ÎÈ ùÇÊÊ×ÎÈöÛÙÓÐÓÈÃðÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉ ìÊÍÌ×ÊÈÃùÍÎÈÊÍÐ öÍÊ×ÎÉÓÙ÷ÆÓØ×ÎÙ×   ùÍÏÏÇÎÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÉ  èÊÛÓÎÓÎÕù×ÎÈ×Ê  ùÓÈÃôÛÐÐ ìÍÐÓÙ×öÇÎÙÈÓÍÎÉ  íÌ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎÉéÇÌÌÍÊÈøÓÆÓÉÓÍÎ óÎÆ×ÉÈÓÕÛÈÓÍÎÉøÓÆÓÉÓÍÎ ìÇÚÐÓÙ ùÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃéÇÌÌÍÊÈ éÌÛÙ×É ìÛÈÊÍÐöÇÎÙÈÓÍÎÉ  ìÛÈÊÍÐøÓÆÓÉÓÍÎ ìÛÈÊÍÐéÇÌÌÍÊÈ öÓÊÓÎÕêÛÎÕ×   ìÍÐÓÙ×éÛÖ×ÈÃéÈÛÈÓÍÎÉ å×ÉÈçÎÓÆ×ÊÉÓÈà  ïÍÎÊÍ×éÈÊ××È  ùÓÈÃù×ÎÈ×Ê  éÌ×ÙÓÛÐíÌ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎÉ  çÎØÓÉÙÐÍÉ×ØÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎ æÓÙ× îÛÊÙÍÈÓÙÉ  çÎØÓÉÙÐÍÉ×ØÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎ  ääøÛÈ×ÍÖíÙÙÇÌÛÎÙà ÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕðÍÙÛÈÓÍÎ ùóèãíö÷çõ÷î÷ ÷çõ÷î÷ùóèãôûððùíïìð÷äïûéè÷êìðûî